http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1100116.htm

I don't think he'll get much of an argument from the east on this one.

It's not the first time that a Pope has said that purgatory is not a place. On August 4, 1999, His Holiness John Paul II of blessed memory said during his general audience that purgatory "does not indicate a place, but a condition of existence".

Full text: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_p...4081999_en.html

Quoting catholicnews: "Unlike most Catholics of her day, he said, she [St. Catherine of Genoa] was convinced purgatory was not a place, but a process."

Has anything actually changed here? As far as I can tell from reading the full text the doctrine itself is still basically the same - the place/ vs process distinction will make not much difference for Orthodox to whom the existence of the doctrine is the issue, not its minutiae.

That is what I found odd.. why should this bother Orthodox?

I have wondered if this (purgatory) was not an officially proclaimed dogma of the Roman Church but only a theological opinion (much like the Toll Houses) would the Orthodox object to it?

I found this passage from John Paul II's message mentioned above interesting.



At least in my mind I see nothing un-Orthodox in this statement, but thats just my humble opinion. I would like to see what others think.

Nelson, toll houses are a curiosity and are nothing more than purgatory by another name. They are, in my opinion but more importantly in the opinion of far more important theologians, not Orthodox theology.

The Orthodox are as a rule however unwilling to condemn an author for just one statement. I have heard many Orthodox priests say that if they could rip those few pages out of Seraphim Rose, everything else would be fine, and it is more or less the same case with some other authors and Church Fathers - Augustine of Hippo for example.

So the problem with the purification quote you post is that it is not Orthodox. Call it purgatory, toll house, cleansing fire - whatever the name, the Orthodox will have a problem with it, because it is posited as dogma.

Unfortunately, however (and I feel great sympathy as it is an unenviable situation) Rome is in a lose-lose situation here. As in so many other things, it has proclaimed a dogma, found it has created problems, and sought to abandon the dogma. Keep the dogma, alter it or get rid of it and it loses in the eyes of many Orthodox, because all three situations bear witness to the unilateral aspects of the way in which some dogmas were promulgated, altered or abandoned(ie confirmed by something with the imprimatur of one cleric, the Pope, rather than a synod etc).

I'm sorry if this seems harsh or offensive, but I don't think anything is gained by suggesting that if the Pope puts out something that rewords or otherwise changes an idea it is going to make much difference to anything.

Hi Otsheylnik. I guess I don't flat out disagree with anything you said, but I'd like to make two points.

1. Even if rewording/clarifying the doctrine of purgatory doesn't make it acceptable to Orthodox, such clarification can still be important as a matter of principle.

2. As you say, we are in a difficult position. However, we would be in a difficult position with or without the doctrine of purgatory (e.g. Papal Infallibility and UOJ, Immaculate Conception, etc.).

Doesn't the process of theosis involve a process of 'purification', that is, of letting go?

The Latin Church claims the existence of Purgatory dogmatically.
The Eastern Orthodox rejects the dogmatic nature of the definition.

Neither side "can" change their position. It's not that they won't. They simply can't because both positions are solidly held and are considered unchangeable.

Do the leaders in both Churches see a way in which both sides can hold to their positions, even if those positions are held in tension?

How can both sides come to a common statement of understanding without one side having to change (because change is not possible for either side)?
That is really what it will take to come to agreement, on many of the issues dividing East and West.

I've seen some on here who just seem to say that they ignore what the Roman Church says as having no bearing on what they believe. I find this to be contradictory, uncharitable, and smug, and shows a lack of being able to articulate how one can hold these in faithful tension.
I wonder how the Eastern Bishops would directly address this issue.
(The Zoghby initiative, btw, doesn't directly address the issue. it address it by avoiding it with specific language).

Just another example of the Orthodox unable to recognize when they have won. Or perhaps they do, and victory is not enough--they want sackcloth and ashes abasement from the Latin Church, a gnashing of teeth and rending of garments, a wailing of repentance and a formal statement that "We were wrong and you were right. We have sinned, please take us back".

Ain't gonna happen, so the question is whether the Orthodox will be good and gracious winners in the name of the unity of all, or whether their real objective is just the humiliation of the Church of Rome?

What have the Orthodox won?

I'm not really sure what you mean by that, but I find the tone of it a little disturbing.

Forgive me for getting a little off topic, but this is an important nuance. Each side considers themselves incapable of changing their position, but neither side considers the other incapable of changing.

Think about it: if an Orthodox [resp. Catholic] said "The Catholics [resp. Orthodox] teach falsehood and always will" that would be proposing some kind of reverse infallibility!

With God all things are possible.